From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>,
xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: projid32bit=1 default in xfsprogs-3.2.0
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:48:31 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131015224831.GZ4446@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <525DBA50.5000202@sandeen.net>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 04:57:36PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 10/15/13 4:49 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:31:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 04:22:14PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>> The tags are out there:
> >>> http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/cmds/xfsprogs.git;a=tags
> >>
> >> I managed to somehow miss them. Sorry!
> >
> > np
> >
> >>> That's an interesting idea. We hadn't discussed a 3.1.12 release. No
> >>> particular objection to doing that, it's just that we didn't branch for the
> >>> v3.0.5->v3.1.0 set of releases. Maybe it is better if we all focus on 3.2.0.
> >>
> >> With git you can easily branch from a past commit, e.g.:
> >>
> >> hch@brick:~/work/xfsprogs$ git checkout -b release-3.1 v3.1.11
> >> Switched to a new branch 'release-3.1'
> >
> > Yep. If folks want a 3.1.12 we should certainly kick the idea around a bit.
> > I'm just guessing that most would prefer to focus on a 3.2.0 in the near term.
> > Maybe I'm mistaken about that though. ;)
>
> I'm not super keen to divide the focus; I've already updated the distros I
> care about to 3.2.0-alpha1, so I wouldn't go backwards to a 3.1.12.
I'd prefer we focus on getting stuff reviewed and integrated into
3.2.0 more quickly than we are now. At this point in the cycle, we
really need the 3.2 branch and xfstests to be updated daily with the
changes that were reviewed in the past 24 hours so that we can
iterate test cycles with the latest fixes more easily.
This will give us a clearer idea of the problems we still need to
fix before the release can progress without everyone having to keep
their own private trees up to date with what everyone else is
changing/fixing...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-15 22:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-14 16:30 projid32bit=1 default in xfsprogs-3.2.0 Eric Sandeen
2013-10-14 21:16 ` Dave Chinner
2013-10-14 21:23 ` Ben Myers
2013-10-14 21:24 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-10-15 19:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-10-15 20:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-10-15 21:22 ` Ben Myers
2013-10-15 21:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-10-15 21:49 ` Ben Myers
2013-10-15 21:57 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-10-15 22:48 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2013-10-15 22:59 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-01-10 14:45 ` Rich Johnston
2014-01-11 10:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131015224831.GZ4446@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox